why didn't we go in immediately when we found out what they did to the Kurds?

Precisely because the U.S. knew that Saddam wasn't "dangerous" to them.
he was a madman that's for sure, he was a bloodthirsty dictator and dangerous to the region due to his volatility.
Syria has proven though, that "dangerous" to his people or "the region" isn't much in the arena of what's best for U.S. and international interests, NATO was built so that a united front could be used against situations like these and it's not being used today or was used back then.
I think this is another "hindsight is 20/20" deal, in the long run a lot of people are going to break down and analyze the foreign policy failures in the Arab and developing world and look at direct, armed incursions as the leftover of the Empires of old, all of them fallen.

But anyway Saddam did not have WMDs when we went into Iraq in 2003. This is most evident by the fact they weren't used. If there was ever a time....

Many believe that they were moved into Syria. Which may be why the Syrian government is fighting as hard as they are....it would be hard for them to move anything out at this point in time with the Kurds and Turkey watching so closely....

Many believe that they were moved into Syria. Which may be why the Syrian government is fighting as hard as they are....it would be hard for them to move anything out at this point in time with the Kurds and Turkey watching so closely....

The fringe believe that. How stupid would Saddam have been to move his most effective weapons out of the country just as the US and UK were about to wage total war with the objective of destroying him and his regime? Answer... pretty damn stupid.

Besides, now Assad would be using those same WMDs on the Free Syria Army rebels. He's shooting them and bombing them, but to my knowledge he hasn't used any biological or chemicals weapons.

Sorry it's a ridiculous, unsubstantiated theory. Not even Colin Powell believes that and if anyone's reputation suffered because of the false WMD claims it's his.

The fringe believe that. How stupid would Saddam have been to move his most effective weapons out of the country just as the US and UK were about to wage total war with the objective of destroying him and his regime? Answer... pretty damn stupid.

Besides, now Assad would be using those same WMDs on the Free Syria Army rebels. He's shooting them and bombing them, but to my knowledge he hasn't used any biological or chemicals weapons.

Sorry it's a ridiculous, unsubstantiated theory. Not even Colin Powell believes that and if anyone's reputation suffered because of the false WMD claims it's his.

Honestly,I'm not political at all. I have no agenda,but I view Bush as a mixed bag. He was probably the worst president in my lifetime,but at the same time I believe he was really given a bad rap and wasn't as "dumb" as everyone made him out to be. He was a smart man with really good intentions,but sometimes good intentions don't always get the best results. He showed remarkable leadership in the wake of 9/11. Yet,at the same time his administration ignored or failed to take seriously,reports in 2000 and summer of 2001 of an impending attack by Bin Laden on America.

This is just my own personal opinion, but a president is only as good as the sum of his administration. George W Bush had a very crummy one. He had his own faults, just like every other president, but I think had he surrounded himself with better people, better choices would have been made and we'd might have a better opinion of him.

This is just my own personal opinion, but a president is only as good as the sum of his administration. George W Bush had a very crummy one. He had his own faults, just like every other president, but I think had he surrounded himself with better people, better choices would have been made and we'd might have a better opinion of him.

True. In fact,I think one of the main reasons he invaded Iraq was because people had supplied him with false info regarding WMD's.

Honestly,my mind has changed on him alot since he left office. Since 9/11 has become one of my historical obsessions,I really started looking back on,and reviewing Bush's presidency. Now that so many years have gone by I've had the chance to kinda step back and look at how he handled certain things,seen him in more in depth interviews and even read his book. He seems like a very nice,intelligent,funny and charismatic person. Now,granted I'm not political expert here. He still made his share of mistakes(every leader does) and of course,his public botching of the English language is well known and documented. But it's very easy to criticize someone in the spotlight who has to make tough decisions,especially when it's the President. He believed he was doing the right things and I think,really cared about this country. Basically,I don't think he deserved all the crap and hate that was directed at him during his term.

I don't necessarily hate him, I never have really. I just think he took us into wars too quickly. I will never, and have never slammed him for his decisions in 9/11 or Katrina. But, the two wars, TARP, and having Cheney as his VP? Yes I will slam him for those decisions.

I'll give him a free pass on Afghanistan, Iraq not so much. Also not finding ways to pay for the wars was a huge mistake

I don't.....drones and special ops could have found Osama Bin Laden just as they did in Pakistan. But he wanted to rebuild a country that has never actually been stable in its entire history. So, nope....I don't give him a by on that one either.